Norman's softening of The Medalist

[Ran Morrissett]

I have just returned from playing what once was a real favorite. This Florida course was built around marshlands and thus, when the winds pick up, the course could be a beast.

Still, the design possessed wide fairways, no rough, and plenty of places where you could miss the ball -  I always thought of it as a strategic course that was GREAT for match play.

Unfortunately, the principal behind the club is an architect and has been unable to resist tinkering with this Pete Dye course. When it opened in 1994, more than one observer considered these amongst Dye's finest greens in terms of their size and interior contours.

Now, tragically   , after apparently listening to one too many about the need for the course to be more fair, the owner/architect has dumbed down the par three 8th and 16th holes and made the (previously) difficult two shot 18th into a mounded-up par five of no distinction that sticks out from the rest of the low profile design. The marshlands no longer terrorize the golfer on the 8th and 16th as the greens were moved and the greens themselves are more user friendly. The interesting contours are gone. For instance, the ability to sling a ball off the mound to the left of the 8th green (i.e. on the side away from the water) and watch it chase after the back right hole locations (i.e. those nearer the water) are gone as the mound was removed. The 17th was converted from a par five to a par four and still fails to inspire.

Conversely, to his credit, the one shot 4th hole is now the 3rd version that I've seen and it's the best one to date and the 7th hole has been improved as well. Also, to his credit, he ruined the playing angle into the one shot 12th hole by moving the tee to the left BUT he has realized his mistake and is apparently going to shift the tee back to its original spot to the right of the 11th green.

Nonetheless, the overall result is a course that is both more playable and - at least to me - less fun to play. Collectively, the holes have lost an edge to them that made the course  distinctive.

I know one member who is pleased with the changes as he now has more fun (he is a 14 marker). I know another member who is equally outraged because the course has been dumbed down (he is a 5 marker).

Obviously, the owner/architect can do whatever he wants with the place but it pains me to see a course be neutered in such a fashion.

Gosh knows my favorite courses are playable by a wide range of golfers but it's a shame that there appears to be less and less economic viablity for there to exist such a club in this country (though Pine Valley never seems to have been afflicted with this problem where the challenge is softened to suit the membership).

Great courses must possess a certain amount of raw challenge and this particular course once did, much to its credit. Sadly, that is no longer the case.

Cheers,

[THuckaby2]

Ran - I think it comes down to the course's raison d'etre (forgive me if I misspelled that).  By that I mean, some courses have as their main reason for existence, the main thing that makes them unique, their brutal difficulty.  Here in California, an obvious course in this genre is PGA West - Stadium.  Hell yes it's hard, it's SUPPOSED TO BE!  But it's fun, because if one has half a brain one knows going in it's gonna be brutal, and Pete also did give ways to get around the course... But going in there expecting a "score" is just silly.

Thus dumbing down a course like that would be a crime.

Another here in CA where this has occurred is one I bring up often here:  Fort Ord - Bayonet.  That course WAS beyond brutal, but it was meant to be... Since the military left they have done wholesale brush clearing, tree trimming, tee moving, and other "renovations" in the interest of "playability" that have made many enjoy the course much more, but have nearly brought me to tears as I watched my baby ruined.

My take is in general, I prefer fun and quirk and "doable" courses - thus my preference for NGLA over Shinnecock whenever that comes up.  But I wouldn't change a thing at Shinnecock also - talk about desecration - that's another where brutality is the reason for being.

All courses need some challenge, don't get me wrong:  too easy is boring also.  But at those special brutal ones that are unique for this, dumbing them down is a crime indeed.

TH

[brad_miller]

Ran, sounds like there is good tinkering and bad tinkering, most of the good is done by the oringinal archie over a period of time given his love and involvement in the course. (Pinehurst #2, PV with the help of others many who sharred  Crump's vision)  Bad tinkering seems to occur without the full consent and approval of the oringinal archie. I suspect to use Gil Hanse as a example, any changes to Applebrook in the future would be well thought out good tinkering. This I believe to be a plus, but the oringinal archie must be a member and/or visit and play the course frequently.

[Ran Morrissett]

Tom,

I hear what you're saying - I look at it as the tail wagging the dog. You join a club/course that is hard and then you ... petition the club to make it easier? If that's the case, join another club!!

Though I may not agree with the severity of the green contours at The National in Australia, I do respect the attitude of many of the members who basically said, "If these greens are modified, we will sue the club for changing the product that they solicited us to join." No dumbing down for these men!


Brad,

Very good point. Leeds, Fownes, Ross, etc. did their courses proud whereas lesser architects who modify courses almost always diminish the value offered by the original architect by replacing unique features with bland (but fair) ones.

Cheers,


  

[THuckaby2]

Tail wagging the dog... well said, Ran!

And once again leave it to the Australians to get this right.  Good on ya, National!

TH

[A_Clay_Man]

I hope someone can nip this one in the butt.  My new home course Pinon Hills is considering changing one or two of their holes and the stated justification is to make the holes easier. I for one am irate. If those that find it too difficult wish to play somewhere else I wouldn't complain ever.

[RJ_Daley]

My 2 cents, even thought Ran beat me to it concisely:  How dumb is it for someone to join a club that is over their head in playing ability/enjoyability.  If it already existed like that, and that is the way the original club membership wanted it, then leave them to their club and join one that fits you.  

If the membership is new and engages an archie to build them a new course, and they find it ultimately does not play to the style and degree of difficulty they envissioned, then ask that archie to meet with them and fix it.  I doubt it would be much of a design masterpiece if the archie did not get it right through extensive interview with the membership in the first place as to what they were attempting to accomplish with the design, pre-construction.  

I think it is a good thing for private clubs that WANT a tough golf course to stick to their guns and keep it tough, if it meets their specification in the first place.  Public courses are another matter.  If a resort holds itself up as a stern test of golf, i.e. Black Wolf Run, or the Straits, then there is no falsity in advertising.  You know it is tough going in.  If it is a daily fee or vacation resort course that advertises as an enjoyable yet clever or strategic course and turns out to be a monster to all but a few select players of high skills, or too tough for women, then I have no quams about changing it.

[John Foley]

Ran,

We tossed around the design issues w/ the 16th & 17th a few months back. Do you think that the 16 is a much worse hole because of the new (easier) greensite and such that the startegic nature of hole is removed? If so, how much does it distract from the overall course

Also, I loved #17 when it was a par 5. As a par 4 (with the same greensite I believe) it may make it even more strategic? Trying to hold that green w/ a long iron should be a might test.

[Ran Morrissett]

John,

The old 16th was a neat one shotter from the tee to the left of the 15th green. First, it was a 8-10 yard walk from green to tee but more importantly, it played great in the wind. As you know, it was approx. 150 yards, the kind of distance where skill is needed to control the ball's trajectory. A poorly played shot that ballooned in the wind would end up in the marsh short or left of the green. Nonetheless, there was a bail-out area to the right for anyone who needed it and it was the kind of length hole that anyone could enjoy.

The new green is maybe 20-30 yards removed from its original position (i.e. it was moved away from the marsh) and the tee that is always in play is 70 yards to the right of the 15th green. The shot is a straightforward 200 yarder that is not poor by any means - but nor does it possess any lasting merit either. Yes, it's almost impossible to lose a golf ball and double the hole, but gone too is the need to imagine/invent a shot. It's a much more ordinary, run of the mill tee ball.

The 17th green was moved 50 yards forward and now sits beside the huge, 18 foot deep bunker that once threatened the old 2nd shot. The hole is OK but the old was good enough too, as you say. BUT to then ruin the old 18th and turn it into this out of context, mounded up par five is horrific. Given that Norman lives there, there is no excuse for this work. Clearly, he doesn't understand/appreciate architecture like I thought he did.

Very sad turn of events that was apparently driven by Norman's frustration at the lack of home sales and his choosing to do something about the prospective buyers comments about the course being too tough to play on a regular basis.

The Medalist course profile will be deleted in short order from this site.

Cheers,

PS Lost in all of this is some of Pete Dye's very best work from the 1990s. His return to low profile features and some excellent medium greens that encouraged the ground game are being lost forever.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ran,

It would seem that the recent work is an extreme reaction in the opposite direction.  I suspect that work will be done this summer or next, to re-compensate for this over-compensation

To better convey the extent of the work, it should noted that almost every hole that was touched had a complete redo of the green and surrounds.

The 18th hole was so overdone, and so out of context with the rest of the golf course, that it looks like Fazio was retained to redesign this one hole.

One has to be alarmed.

When will he get it right ?

When will the tinkering cease ?